My question is: what could Gamboa have become without the troubles he had to face due to the Cuban policy that forbids their amateur fighters to go pro?
I mean, what if Gamboa would have been able to go pro in 2004 or earlier instead of 2007? I mean, 3 years are quite a long time in a boxer's career, and 27 years of age is quite late to start a great professional career.

Now at age 30, he could become the next sensation in boxing. So fame and wealth are already under his belt. But, is he young and fit enough to reach greatness?

My question is: what could Gamboa have become without the troubles he had to face due to the Cuban policy that forbids their amateur fighters to go pro?
I mean, what if Gamboa would have been able to go pro in 2004 or earlier instead of 2007? I mean, 3 years are quite a long time in a boxer's career, and 27 years of age is quite late to start a great professional career.

Now at age 30, he could become the next sensation in boxing. So fame and wealth are already under his belt. But, is he young and fit enough to reach greatness?

It's less an issue of fitness and experience than the standard of opposition he is fortunate enough to arrive upon. Being a "great" fighter (in the truest sense and not the common one where the term has become so diluted it qualifies as a homepathic cure) is as much to do with luck as ability.

Take someone like Ali for instance. Every day he must count himself fortunate to have fought at a time when heavyweight boxing was filled with some of the finest talent the sport has witnessed. Born fifteen (or even ten years) later and we could just as easily be arguing over whether he - like Larry Holmes - was really capable of mixing it with the likes of Joe Louis, Sonny Liston, Marciano or Foreman.

There are many fighters who would be ranked far higher had they been lucky enough to be born at the right time.

As for Gamboa. The pool of talent he currently swims in is solid but not spectacular so I'd say the chances of him being regarded as a true great are modest.

It's less an issue of fitness and experience than the standard of opposition he is fortunate enough to arrive upon. Being a "great" fighter (in the truest sense and not the common one where the term has become so diluted it qualifies as a homepathic cure) is as much to do with luck as ability.

Take someone like Ali for instance. Every day he must count himself fortunate to have fought at a time when heavyweight boxing was filled with some of the finest talent the sport has witnessed. Born fifteen (or even ten years) later and we could just as easily be arguing over whether he - like Larry Holmes - was really capable of mixing it with the likes of Joe Louis, Sonny Liston, Marciano or Foreman.

There are many fighters who would be ranked far higher had they been lucky enough to be born at the right time.

As for Gamboa. The pool of talent he currently swims in is solid but not spectacular so I'd say the chances of him being regarded as a true great are modest.

That's true for what regards the featherweights and lower. In fact let's think about the big fights he could be into: JM Lopez, Donaire and Koki Kameda... Big but not great.
What if he moves up in weight (he's built up pretty well so all he will have to do is loose the diet a little bit) and face the likes of Brandon Rios, Guerrero, Katsidis, JM Marquez, and even Khan, Bradley and Maidana at a catchweight: those fights are what you call the gate to greatness. That's why I say that those 3 years spent travelling across South America have been a disgrace to his career: amateur and pro are two different worlds. You don't become a professional fighter from one day to another: going pro it's like starting over a different sport: 12 rounds instead of 4, no helmet, different tactics, deeper blows... You need at least 2 years of intense training and studying: Gamboa didn't have that time to complete his pro training before to face the big opponents. Look at Nonito Donaire, he's one year younger than him but he went pro six years earlier... And you can see the results in his technique, experience and fitness: if he started in 2004, Gamboa could already be fighting the lightweights and building up his path to the Hall.

That's true for what regards the featherweights and lower. In fact let's think about the big fights he could be into: JM Lopez, Donaire and Koki Kameda... Big but not great.
What if he moves up in weight (he's built up pretty well so all he will have to do is loose the diet a little bit) and face the likes of Brandon Rios, Guerrero, Katsidis, JM Marquez, and even Khan, Bradley and Maidana at a catchweight:

At the rate Katsidis eats leather I doubt he's got 18 months before the onset of brain damage. Marquez is on the downslope. The fact that he's moving up for money kind of underlines this. I'm not convinced by Guerrero and Rios still has a lot to prove.

Maidana gets props for bravery and explosive hitting. But he's also a sitting duck. Which leaves Bradley & Khan. I like both for different reasons (the former for his toughness and durability (although not his head) and the latter his skills. Gamboa will have to improve quicker than he has ever shown before for him to stand a chance against either. You just can't hope to mix with dangerous customers such as Bradley & Khan with a defence like Gamboa's. I'm not even sure he has a defence.

So, no. Aside from Bradley & Khan (who themselves still have much to prove) Gamboa's future doesn't appear to be littered with stellar names. Of course, things could change. But not in the next six months or so. And Gamboa - as has been pointed out - isn't getting any younger.

27 is only late when you're first picking up a pair of gloves. Gamboa has been boxing since forever and has an extensive amateur pedigree. That plus the fact that he has been matched tough since hes started his pro career. Hes been pro for 4 years and most of his opponents has had winning records and a few of them even champions. I think hes right on time.